But not everyone was capable of owning those ships. You really think the average accountant had one?

Respectfully, how many people are capable of owning 40 semi-automatic "assault" rifles? Does the average accountant have 40 of them?

While the beliefs of the founders were as devise and varied as any more recent congress, as a group, they were much more concerned with the oppression of freedoms by the government than the misuse of those freedoms by the average citizen. In fact, one of the first acts of congress was Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated that every citizen own a firearm and associated supporting equipment that met the current military standard upon obtaining the age of 18. This puts the founders' beliefs much closer to those of Switzerland, where every citizen expected to serve in the militia and retain their service weapons and combat gear, than those of the modern US.

While I'm unable to find to what extent this law was actually enforced, it remained in effect until the Militia Act of 1903, where the government took responsibility for arming militias. So for 111 years, citizens of the US not only had the right to bear arms, but were required by federal law to have a firearm (and supporting equipment) that met the current military standards. If we were strictly following the founders intent, we should be advocating the mandatory ownership by every citizen of an M16 and associated combat gear.

While the beliefs of the founders were as devise and varied as any more recent congress, as a group, they were much more concerned with the oppression of freedoms by the government than the misuse of those freedoms by the average citizen. In fact, one of the first acts of congress was Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated that every citizen own a firearm and associated supporting equipment that met the current military standard upon obtaining the age of 18. This puts the founders' beliefs much closer to those of Switzerland, where every citizen expected to serve in the militia and retain their service weapons and combat gear, than those of the modern US.

(Emphasis mine)

So required to own A weapon, not dozens of them, and be trained in how to use it.

That's nothing like what we have now where you can literally buy as many as you can afford and you need absolutely zero training in how to use or secure them.

Does paying a $200 tax and waiting 6-9 months make us safer than buying them from Walmart? Please explain...

Are we talking guns, noise suppressors, semi-auto, handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife... what are we talking about a tax and a waiting period for?

Waiting period? Yes. Yes, it does make "us" safer if we're talking about "us" being people that are involved in domestic violence situations where someone gets angry at their partner leaving and wants to show them who is really boss.

Are we talking guns, noise suppressors, semi-auto, handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife... what are we talking about a tax and a waiting period for?

Waiting period? Yes. Yes, it does make "us" safer if we're talking about "us" being people that are involved in domestic violence situations where someone gets angry at their partner leaving and wants to show them who is really boss.

You know how a lot of gas powered lawn and garden equipment almost requires hearing protection, but modern passenger cars do not?That's all I want. I don't expect any of my guns to be "silent", I just want to cut the noise level down. The fact this is illegal is silly to me.

I don't expect any of my guns to be "silent", I just want to cut the noise level down. The fact this is illegal is silly to me.

But why? Why is that important? Can't you just wear hearing protection?

I think my point is that, in order for people to not fight so hard to get rid of guns in general (which is not something I, or most people, in any way want), then the gun community (which I am part of) has to give a little on the things that they see as something they like or want in order to make it so that the people using firearms to kill or injure others are easier to catch. Otherwise it just gets the minority of people who want them gone completely evidence that they do harm, and they'll fight to get rid of them like they have already done in other countries.

But let's be honest. There are plenty of times when easy access to a large number of firearms or firearms with a large capacity was the reason why more than just a few people died. They're NOT the same as a knife or a samurai sword or even a car bomb. But it's like there's no discussion of what gun owners are willing to give up so that people stop dying in the large numbers that they are. They're stuck on "Second Amendment says I can do whatever the hell I want!"

Can we limit capacity? Is 100 round magazines on 40 semi-auto firearms okay for one person to have in a hotel room?Can we limit the sheer number of firearms people own? Is 10 reasonable? Is 100 reasonable? Is 1,000? Is a small explosive okay? A nuclear weapon?

When you get down to it, everyone wants limits. You don't want your ex-wife to have a nuclear weapon. It's just a matter of where we're willing to draw the line.

Yeah, we actually do put up barriers in the places where people visit a lot.

Look closer - more people are standing on a small wall were the railing is deformed, right at the edge I might add, than behind the rail. Case in point, more people accept the risk rather than ruining the view.

Look closer - more people are standing on a small wall were the railing is deformed, right at the edge I might add, than behind the rail. Case in point, more people accept the risk rather than ruining the view.

Look even closer. The railing looks like it's not there because it goes lower in the middle along with the path.

They poke at some of the sacred cows on both sides of the debate. No big surprises for me, except #4, I thought there was data showing decreased violent crime with concealed carry.

All the others were no surprise to me either, but like you, I'm surprised by #4. I would have figured it would have close to no impact at all, and especially not increase crime. Maybe a case of correlation =/= causation?

I did, before I posted. I found a larger version of the photo; the railing is depressed, i.e. damaged, right in front of where most of the people are standing.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because it's ridiculous, but not, it ins't damaged, at least not in that picture. It'a lower area so, logically, the waist high railing goes down with people's average waist height. You can literally see the full gown adult male putting his hand on it without having to stoop. The part to the left of him is bent down because it's connecting to the railing on the lower portion. If it were "damaged," there's not a snowball's chance that the NPS would allow people to stand right next to it.

All the others were no surprise to me either, but like you, I'm surprised by #4. I would have figured it would have close to no impact at all, and especially not increase crime. Maybe a case of correlation =/= causation?

Just a thought, looking at the summary of the study linked in the article. It shows no increase in murders or property crimes, but an increase in violent crime. They don't specify what exactly is the criteria for violent crimes, at least in the summary and you have to buy the report if you want to read it. By common definitions, excluding murder and property crimes from violent crimes, that leaves only assaults.

Pulling a gun on someone in most area's will land you with an assault charge, even if it is in self defense and is dropped later. This could just be a result of more people being armed and having a firearm during a confrontation. Since there is no corresponding increase in the murder rate, it doesn't seem to be making those types of situations worse, generally speaking. But without seeing the full study and how exactly they sourced and quantified the data, that's just speculation on my part.

But why? Why is that important? Can't you just wear hearing protection?

No. Best hearing protection only reduces it by about 30db. This still leaves room for gradual hearing loss over time and some people are susceptible to tinnitus. To be totally safe requires both suppression and hearing protection. In europe it is also a matter of population density. Without suppression it is hard to maintain shooting ranges. This is becoming an issue in some parts of US now.

But let's be honest. There are plenty of times when easy access to a large number of firearms or firearms with a large capacity was the reason why more than just a few people died. They're NOT the same as a knife or a samurai sword or even a car bomb.

Even this shooting was no where near a car bomb. A car bomb is a completely different scale in terms of danger. In the oklahoma city bombing more than 150 people died. And that was a very crude, unrefined bomb which had to penetrate concrete walls. Even so, if you took the OCB and put it in the Vegas venue we would be looking at thousands dead. One suicide vest bomber in a crowd will kill hundreds. We are lucky this guy's pilot license wasnt up-to-date as he could have loaded up his plane with explosives and fly right into the venue probably killing most of the 22,000 person crowd.

Can we limit capacity? Is 100 round magazines on 40 semi-auto firearms okay for one person to have in a hotel room?

Here is the thing, the hotel had a strict no gun policy. So did the concert. These bans did zero, zilch, nada to prevent the incident. Nor do the total bans in Europe. France has a total ban on semi-autos. Yet 89 people were killed and 413 were injured at the concert attack in paris.

And regards bumpstocks, reports now are that most of the guns with bump stocks were found jammed. So casualties probably would have been worse without them. A decently trained marksman can fire an average of twelve aimed shots a minute (this includes 10 round magazine changes). Over ten minutes (time of actual shooting) that is 120 well placed shots. With a 50% mortality rate that is sixty people. A higher death toll than seen here (so far...lets hope it stays that way). And without the easy to spot rapid fire it possibly could have gone on a lot longer.

Which brings up another point, we dont know how many people were actually shot versus injured in other manners or even how many shots the shooter got off. The FBI and local law enforcement havent released that info. So there isnt even enough information to have an informed policy discussion.

In short, as security experts keep saying, but politicians continue to ignore, you cant stop these incidents by eliminating "means". They can only be prevented by disrupting "opportunity" and "motive". But even then some will make it through. So you have to work to minimize them when they do occur. And I have to say the Vegas police, private security, and civillians did that amazingly well given the circumstances. Heck, we saw people breaking into/stealing trucks to make make-shift ambulances to carry people to hospitals. We need to tell these types of stories more to get people mentally prepared on how to react - i.e. with courage and decisiveness.

It would be foolish to further erode rights (we have thousands of gun control laws already on the books) without definitve proof of any benefit. Especially when efforts to prepare the citizenry on how to respond have been totally innadequate. Politicians should address that first.

I was discussing with my father who always critiques the strategy. He likes to opine that we're lucky people who want to hurt others don't think very hard.

If you want to hurt people, the number of guns you have is irrelevant. If there had been 375 rifles laying about 325 at best wouldn't be touched. If anything it proves incompetence or illness.

When I look at the strategy used I don't think slidefire. With 2 shooting positions high up and far away my mind goes right to belt fed. For all the "meticulous planning", the wrong weapon was selected.

I don't know why a fully automatic AR is such a horrifying thing. This shooter had the money and record to go buy a semi version of a SAW if he didn't want to go class III. Still a deadlier option than an AR.

I know we're going to debate the AR and it's features. But oit's not some magical thing. In this instance we should be thanking God nobody bumped into this asshat at the range with an M60. Or a collector with an old MG42. The mag changes probably saved a lot of lives.

To David's point, when I took CERT training a few years back, on the terrorism segment our in class assignment was to plan a terror attack.Our assignment was to plan the most horrific terror attack possible using conventional means (no EMP, no sci-fi bio-weapons, etc.).Part of me doesn't want to share too much on the internet, but basically a public event was targeted using unsuspected means. It really came down to the logistics of blocking points of egress, and causing panic.A team of 4 dedicated people with a few weeks of planning could cause thousands of deaths.

Thankfully, highly effective analytical planners don't often want to hurt others. Even more rare are groups of such folks.

I know we're going to debate the AR and it's features. But oit's not some magical thing. In this instance we should be thanking God nobody bumped into this asshat at the range with an M60. Or a collector with an old MG42. The mag changes probably saved a lot of lives.

Good points.

It wasnt officially reported yet, but one officer said he used a few100 round mags. That is most likely why the baners are pushing a "rate of fire" narrative. The language the democrats pulled into the bill was from the magazine ban they failed to pass last time. So it is going to most likely be a bait and switch to get that passed. The messages they are systematically feeding to media are:

Shooter used bump stock that is why attack so deadly.Bump stock increases rate of fire just like full auto.We banned full auto because of rate of fire.So we should ban bump stocks.Higher capacity magazines increase rate of fire too.So both bump stocks and higher capacity magazines must be banned.

These are the mental baby steps they use on public who dont understand firearms at all.it is very carefully crafted to mislead.

Interviewer: What do you see?LVMPD: An armory.Interviewer: An armory?LVMPD: So many guns. So many magazines. Stacks and stacks of magazines everywhere. Just in suitcases neatly stacked, against pillars that were in the room, all stacked up. Rifles placed all throughout... it looked just like a gun store. We were tripping over long guns.

Gun laws work because (mass) murders don't want to break the law when they kill dozens of people.

/sarcasm

We had far fewer gun laws before 1968 and I can't remember anything like these school/mall/concert shootings happening back then. And yes you could buy semi-auto rifles and pistols via mail-order or at Sears or Penny's with zero paperwork, just cashola. The most infamous shootings back then were with scoped rifles or revolvers.

This Las Vegas shooting is an anomaly in that he bought everything legally, and was wealthy enough to do so. Most murderers steal their weapons or get them on the black market (someone else stole them). They have no qualms about gun laws for crying out loud! They plan to kill people so any other law is kind of irrelevant to them. The mass murder problem is a software problem (human minds) not a hardware problem (guns). Focusing ANY effort on guns and restrictions is just a distraction from dealing with the actual problem. As the Andrew Wiegands areticle points out, there are numerous methods readily available to anyone who wants to commit mass murder.

Banning ownership or possession of THINGS is just a feel good way of ignoring the actual problem and will only punish the fellow law abiding. When will we learn that outlawing THINGS does not prevent crime and often increases crime due to the black market that rises around it? When will we care enough to address the real problem and quit blaming THINGS for human behavior problems?

Gun laws work because (mass) murders don't want to break the law when they kill dozens of people.

/sarcasm

We had far fewer gun laws before 1968 and I can't remember anything like these school/mall/concert shootings happening back then. And yes you could buy semi-auto rifles and pistols via mail-order or at Sears or Penny's with zero paperwork, just cashola. The most infamous shootings back then were with scoped rifles or revolvers.

This Las Vegas shooting is an anomaly in that he bought everything legally, and was wealthy enough to do so. Most murderers steal their weapons or get them on the black market (someone else stole them). They have no qualms about gun laws for crying out loud! They plan to kill people so any other law is kind of irrelevant to them. The mass murder problem is a software problem (human minds) not a hardware problem (guns). Focusing ANY effort on guns and restrictions is just a distraction from dealing with the actual problem. As the Andrew Wiegands areticle points out, there are numerous methods readily available to anyone who wants to commit mass murder.

Banning ownership or possession of THINGS is just a feel good way of ignoring the actual problem and will only punish the fellow law abiding. When will we learn that outlawing THINGS does not prevent crime and often increases crime due to the black market that rises around it? When will we care enough to address the real problem and quit blaming THINGS for human behavior problems?

Okay, so since we're going to allow virtually anyone who has not yet been caught and convicted of a felony to legally posses as many guns as they would like with as large a capacity of magazine as they feel like having, what is the solution?

And if I hear "enforce the laws we already have," I guarantee you all will hear me scream no matter how far away you are. That's a BS way to say we don't need to change a thing when obviously we do.

Interviewer: What do you see?LVMPD: An armory.Interviewer: An armory?LVMPD: So many guns. So many magazines. Stacks and stacks of magazines everywhere. Just in suitcases neatly stacked, against pillars that were in the room, all stacked up. Rifles placed all throughout... it looked just like a gun store. We were tripping over long guns.

Stacking so many guns you trip over them is hardly a sound tactic. 100 round magazines are a silly gimmick. The military doesn't use them.

This is just another example of why people uneducated on guns shouldn't make policy. Everyone is falling for the cartoon version while those who could have done far worse get ignored as there is no room for reality.

The members of this forum could probably come up with a list of better guns for such a crime that would number in the hundreds. For Pete's sake some would be from WWI. But then we wouldn't be in the cartoon narrative.

Okay, so since we're going to allow virtually anyone who has not yet been caught and convicted of a felony to legally posses as many guns as they would like with as large a capacity of magazine as they feel like having, what is the solution?

And if I hear "enforce the laws we already have," I guarantee you all will hear me scream no matter how far away you are. That's a BS way to say we don't need to change a thing when obviously we do.

The solution is to quit focusing about THINGS, whether it is guns, drugs, alcohol or anyTHING else. Cars kill far more people but we don't obsess over restricting the type of cars people can own, possess or drive in order to prevent drunk/reckless driving, vehicle assaults, or ISIS people ramming murders. In every other situation but guns and drugs, we focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior.

And we have to accept as rational people, that THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT MASS MURDER BY A DETERMINED PERSON WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Tell me how yet another gun law will prevent a mass murder?

An AR15 or AK (or most semi-auto firearms) is so easily turned into a full automatic with a little grinding that I am really surprised this guy went to the trouble of installing goofy ass stocks. Either he was an idiot or purposefully wanted to make an issue of using goofy stocks and problematic 100-rd mags which are hugely expensive compared to milspec 30-rd mags. And of course there are a hundred other ways to use common items to kill lots of people yet we don't ban those things either. Why so hung about about restricting guns?

The solution is to quit focusing about THINGS, whether it is guns, drugs, alcohol or anyTHING else. Cars kill far more people but we don't obsess over restricting the type of cars people can own, possess or drive in order to prevent drunk/reckless driving, vehicle assaults, or ISIS people ramming murders. In every other situation but guns and drugs, we focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior.

And we have to accept as rational people, that THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT MASS MURDER BY A DETERMINED PERSON WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Tell me how yet another gun law will prevent a mass murder?

An AR15 or AK (or most semi-auto firearms) is so easily turned into a full automatic with a little grinding that I am really surprised this guy went to the trouble of installing goofy ass stocks. Either he was an idiot or purposefully wanted to make an issue of using goofy stocks and problematic 100-rd mags which are hugely expensive compared to milspec 30-rd mags. And of course there are a hundred other ways to use common items to kill lots of people yet we don't ban those things either. Why so hung about about restricting guns?

I still don't see any possible solution in that whole post. Just "quit focusing on things" and maybe the beginnings of an idea with "focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior."

So again, what do we do? Because I still haven't heard anything proactive yet, just "not laws about guns" or some form of that.

Stacking so many guns you trip over them is hardly a sound tactic. 100 round magazines are a silly gimmick. The military doesn't use them.

This is just another example of why people uneducated on guns shouldn't make policy. Everyone is falling for the cartoon version while those who could have done far worse get ignored as there is no room for reality.

The members of this forum could probably come up with a list of better guns for such a crime that would number in the hundreds. For Pete's sake some would be from WWI. But then we wouldn't be in the cartoon narrative.

I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback the guy's mass killing tactics. It was the police that were saying they were literally tripping over all of the guns and 100 round magazines, not leftist gun grabbers.